In Burwell v.Hobby Lobby, five Supreme Court justices concurred that a closely held, for-profit corporation is entitled to the free exercise of religion without undue government interference.
Case Study
In Burwell v.Hobby Lobby, five Supreme Court justices concurred that a closely held, for-profit corporation is entitled to the free exercise of religion without undue government interference. The justices exempted Hobby Lobby from providing several contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate because this requirement imposed a substantial burden on its religious beliefs. The four dissenting justices vigorously resisted this conclusion. In this case study we present both sides of the sharp debate on corporate liberties reignited by this case.
The Hobby Lobby decision has brought little closure to the dispute about the scope of rights for the corporation and the whole question of corporate purpose. A key issue in this case is whether or not a for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby can qualify as a “person” who can in some way “exercise religion.”
Hobby Lobby Inc.
By any measure, Hobby Lobby is a unique and exceptional corporation. This privately held company was founded in 1970 by entrepreneurs David and Barbara Green along with their three children. The Green family began by making miniature picture frames in their garage. A few years later, on August 3, 1972, the Green family opened the first Hobby Lobby shop. It was a small store with only 300 square feet of retail space. Beneath its gray roof, the Greens began selling their picture frames, art supplies, and other items for hobbyists. The store was a big success, and Hobby Lobby has been growing at a rapid pace for the past four decades.
In 2016, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., with corporate headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, operated over 600 stores located across the United States, especially in the Midwest. It also has stores in China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. The company currently employs 20,000 full and part-time workers. Each U.S. store has an average space of about 55,000 square feet. Hobby Lobby is an industry-leading retailer offering more than 70,000 arts, crafts, hobbies, and home decor products, along with an abundance of Christmas and seasonal products. Hobby Lobby is included in Forbes’s annual list of America’s largest companies. It ranks as the third-largest craft and fabric retailer (behind Michaels Stores and Jo-Ann Stores). Hobby Lobby is set up under Oklahoma law as a for-profit but nonpublic and closely held corporation. The company is in excellent financial health and still carries no long-term debt on its books. Its total revenues in 2016 exceeded $4 billion.36
What sets Hobby Lobby far apart from most of its corporate peers is its explicit Christian values. The Green family members are all devout practicing Christians, and they have designed a corporate structure and culture that embeds Christian values. The company’s statement of purpose commits the owners to “honor the Lord in all they do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” Each family member signs a pledge to run the business in accordance with Christian ideals. To be true to that commitment, Hobby Lobby stores are closed on Sunday despite the fact that the company loses millions of dollars by doing so. Hobby Lobby also contributes substantial profits to Christian missionaries and different Christian ministries.37
In addition, Hobby Lobby takes out full-page ads during the Easter season in every city or town where it operates one of its stores. The company evangelizes through these ads, which provide some information on how to learn more about Jesus Christ. The ads are expensive and are not the most efficient way of reaching new customers, but the Greens see this evangelization initiative as part of their Christian duty.38
However, Hobby Lobby, the “dream store” for the hobbyist and amateur decorator, soon found itself thrust into a legal nightmare when its religious convictions collided with the country’s new health care law. The landmark Hobby Lobby case has now become the center of legal and moral debates about corporate purpose and religious freedom. To explore how this happened, we must first turn to a cursory treatment of the Affordable Care Act and the Health and Human Services mandates that put the company into this moral and legal bind.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
When Barack Obama became president of the United States in 2008, he signaled that universal health care would be one of his chief priorities. In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). This law mandates employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer a group health plan or group health insurance that provides “minimum essential coverage.”39 Any employer who refused to comply with this group health plan requirement had to pay a fine for every affected individual worker. In addition, under the so-called individual mandate, every U.S. citizen had to purchase minimal essential health care coverage or be subject to a tax penalty.
Unless certain exceptions applied, the Affordable Care Act also mandated that the group health care plan provided by an employer include “preventative care and screenings” for women without any copayments.40 It was left to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which was responsible for implementation of the Affordable Care Act, to stipulate which types of preventative care should be covered. Accordingly, the department promulgated Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines. Among those guidelines was a requirement that employers provide “coverage without cost sharing” for all Food and Drug Administration–approved “contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling.”41 There were exemptions from this so-called contraceptive mandate for “religious employers,” a category which included churches and their “integrated auxiliaries.”42 There was also an accommodation for other religious nonprofit organizations. An eligible organization such as a Christian school could exclude contraceptive and sterilization coverage from its health plan. However, the insurance issuer had to provide separate payments for those services without imposing any cost-sharing on the school or the employee who wanted that service.
The ACA’s individual mandate was promptly challenged in the federal courts. Plaintiffs argued the ACA’s attempt to regulate individuals who were not in the health care marketplace was unconstitutional, a violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit federal court agreed with those arguments and ruled that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause when it passed into law the individual mandate provision of the ACA. The Supreme Court, however, overturned that decision and upheld the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate. It reasoned that the ACA was constitutional because it was a tax.
The contraceptive mandate also became a source of some contention. For-profit corporations were not eligible for an exemption or an accommodation. But some of these corporations resisted the contraceptive mandate since it forced them to provide certain forms of contraception to which they objected. These employers worried that by subsidizing these medical treatments, they would share in the blame for the wrongful act of using contraceptive devices that behaved as abortifacients. Thus, they had grave conscientious objections to the contraceptive mandate. One of those employers was Hobby Lobby.43
Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom
As a for-profit, closely held corporation, Hobby Lobby did not meet the criteria for an accommodation or an exemption from the HHS mandate. The company was not opposed to contraceptive coverage in general. But it objected to 4 of the 24 FDA-approved contraceptive methods because they prevented the fertilized egg or embryo from implanting on the uterus.44 The Green family, following its Christian faith, believed that human life begins at conception. Since those 4 contraceptive methods functioned as abortifacients, they terminated a human life, and Hobby Lobby did not want to be complicit in this immoral act. Thus, while the Greens did not object to providing through their health care plan 20 of the 24 FDA-approved contraception methods, they vigorously objected to providing the four that could potentially destroy a fertilized egg or early-stage embryo. Moreover, Hobby Lobby’s insurance had never covered contraceptive drugs or devices that could terminate a pregnancy.45
The majority Supreme Court opinion described Hobby Lobby’s concern in this way: the owners of the business have religious objections to abortion; several FDA-approved contraceptive methods are abortifacients; if the owners comply with the HHS’s contraceptive mandate, they will be facilitating abortions and complicit in the killing of an embryonic human being.46 According to the court, “the owners believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.”47
Accordingly, the Greens and Hobby Lobby sued the Health and Human Services Department and challenged the contraceptive mandate, claiming the requirement to provide abortion-inducing drugs violated their right to properly exercise their religious freedom. The plaintiffs claimed the HHS mandate infringed upon their rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is also guaranteed by a 1993 statute called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In their view, the government requirement unfairly burdened their religious beliefs. The RFRA prohibits the “government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the government demonstrates that the application of such a burden is “the least restrictive means” to advance a “compelling government interest.”48 The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in order to redefine the exercise of religion as any exercise of religion, “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief,” that is to be “construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” In 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA in another landmark case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita.49
The Hobby Lobby lawsuit challenging the contraceptive mandate was filed in September 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Hobby Lobby could have been fined $1.3 million per day for failure to provide the four types of contraception to which it so strenuously objected on religious grounds. The company, therefore, sought injunctive relief. However, the district court denied Hobby Lobby’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court held that Hobby Lobby did not possess the right to the free exercise of religion (as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and therefore that it was unlikely to prevail on constitutional grounds.
Several months later, another company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, also brought suit to challenge the HHS mandate on the basis of its religious liberty. Conestoga was a for-profit Pennsylvania woodworking business with 950 employees. It was operated by the Hahn family, two parents and three children, who were all active in the business. The Hahns were devout members of the Mennonite Church and owned all of Conestoga’s stock. They also controlled the board of directors, and one of the sons was the company’s president and CEO. Like the Greens, the Hahn family objected to providing their employees with the FDA-approved contraceptives that were considered to be abortifacients. As evidence of their deep-seated religious convictions, they cited the company’s “Vision and Values Statement,” which explains the corporate mission: “a reasonable profit in a manner that reflects Christian heritage.” Years before the HHS mandate was issued, the company’s board had also adopted a “Statement on the Sanctity of Human Life.”50
Hobby Lobby appealed its case, and in March 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the plaintiffs a hearing. Two months later the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling and held that Hobby Lobby satisfied the conditions for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered the government to stop enforcement of the contraception rule on Hobby Lobby and sent the case back to the district court, which granted a preliminary injunction in July. In its ruling, the appeals court held that a closely held, for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby qualified as a person under the RFRA and therefore had legal standing to bring forward this claim. Hobby Lobby “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute [were] substantially burdened by the contraceptive coverage requirement and have established an irreparable harm.”51 In September 2013, the Health and Human Services Department appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the two cases, Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby, were consolidated.
The Supreme Court Decision
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. It concluded that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for some forms of objectionable contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated the RFRA, along with the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The majority opinion of the court concluded that “a federal government’s restriction on the activities of a for-profit, closely held corporation must comply with the RFRA.”52 The New York Times wrote that the decision was characteristic of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts: “an inclination toward nominally incremental rulings with vast potential for great change.”53
Until this litigation and this ruling, no court had ever recognized a for-profit corporation’s exemption from a law in the name of religious liberty. The 5–4 ruling appeared to open the door to many challenges from corporations over laws they claim violated their religious liberty. But Justice Samuel A. Alito, who wrote the opinion for the majority, emphasized the ruling’s narrow scope. According to Alito, the court ruled only that a federal religious-freedom law applied to “closely held” for-profit corporations run on religious principles. It would not really apply to large publicly traded corporations, since the “idea that unrelated shareholders—including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders—would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable.”54 Justice Alito concluded that “corporate giants” would be highly unlikely to assert RFRA claims.55
Despite its limited scope, the case represented a new landmark since it allowed at least some corporations the right to claim a religious accommodation in order to avoid compliance with federal regulations. What was the court’s reasoning behind this decision? The justices had to resolve at least two major questions. The court had to determine whether RFRA protection included closely held, for-profit corporations, even though the law from which the exemption was sought was designed to aid their workers, some of whom did not share the owners’ religious beliefs. The justices also had to determine that there was a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion in order to qualify for the RFRA exemption.56
The first question depends on how one interprets the RFRA statute and the legislative intent behind it. Does the for-profit corporation qualify as a “person” within the statute? Justice Alito affirmatively answers that question, and he relies on the proposition that within the law generally corporations qualify as persons. Moreover, reasons Alito, the government had already conceded that RFRA applies to nonprofit organizations, so why arbitrarily exclude for-profit companies? To suggest that a for-profit corporation cannot be included under the auspices of the RFRA “flies in the face of modern corporate law.”57 For Alito, it was simply unintelligible to include some kinds of companies within the purview of the statute but not others.58
The second question is whether requiring insurance coverage for employees for the four contraceptive devices at issue represented a “substantial burden” on the companies’ exercise of religion. In making the determination that there was such a burden, Alito relied on two key factors. The first factor was the sincerity of the owners’ beliefs. There was ample evidence to support the sincerity of both parties, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. Their faith-based practices, such as closing stores on Sunday, along with their explicit mission statements, were quite convincing. Both companies sent a clear message of “religiosity” to their employees, shareholders, and other stakeholders.59 Both companies sincerely believed the use of particular contraceptive devices that sometimes resulted in abortion was immoral, and in good conscience they did not want to provide that device through their insurance plans. On this point, Justice Ginsburg had argued that “the requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial.”60 But the majority was convinced that the employers’ connection to the use of the abortifacient was direct rather than remote and therefore constituted a substantial burden. The second factor was the onerous financial impact that would result from violation of the mandate. If these companies failed to include these contraceptives in their coverage, they would be fined $100 per day for each employee, and if they dropped insurance coverage, they would be fined $2,000 per employee per year.61
With these two threshold questions resolved, Alito easily resolves other issues such as the government’s “compelling interest” and whether the denial of an exemption was the least restrictive means of achieving its objective. Alito assumed (without deciding) the presence of a compelling government interest, but he also found that the government did not use the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Instead of denying the exemption to all for-profit corporations, why not allow for the same accommodation available to religious nonprofits? Hence, he reached his conclusion that the contraceptive mandate violated RFRA as applied to corporations.62 But Alito’s opinion was always focused on the members of the corporation, rather than the corporate entity itself. His opinion did not draw on insights about corporate personification as a justification for this right to the exercise of religion. Nor did it imply that a corporation itself, apart from its members, can somehow exercise religion or practice its religious beliefs. Rather, the court concluded that we should grant free-exercise rights to the corporation as a means of protecting the free-exercise rights of the corporation’s owners and employees.63 According to Justice Alito, “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”64 The Hobby Lobby corporation was entitled to assert its religious rights in order to protect the religious liberty of its owners. The case did not treat the corporation as an independent legal entity or “person,” with rights separate from its members. Rather, the court emphasized a conception of the corporation as an association capable of asserting the rights of its members.65
The Dissent
Four dissenting justices took strong exception to Justice Alito’s polished reasoning. Justice Ginsburg, who wrote a stinging dissenting opinion, said the court had mistakenly extended religious-freedom protections to “the commercial, profit-making world.” In her view, the exercise of religion can only be done by natural persons and cannot be associated with the corporate format. Thus the application of the RFRA to for-profit corporations is a serious error, since it does not make sense to think of these corporations as exercising religion. “The court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths.”66
Justice Ginsberg also found fault with Alito’s conclusion that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened a person’s exercise of religion and therefore violated the RFRA. Congress, she explained, “meant the modifier ‘substantially’ to carry some weight.”67 She argued that the requirement does not include a directive that Hobby Lobby or Conestoga purchase or provide directly the contraceptive devices they find to be objectionable. These companies simply direct money into health insurance plans that finance a wide variety of benefits, and now, thanks to the ACA, must provide contraceptive coverage as well as other preventative services.
Justice Ginsberg’s dissent also voiced a sentiment shared by many: what are the limits for allowing corporations to opt out of federal regulations with which they disagreed? She feared other religious objectors would eliminate from their insurance coverage treatments they determined to be in conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg speculated about the possible repercussion of the ruling:
Would the exemption the Court holds, RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?68
The Ginsberg dissent is perhaps most noteworthy because it calls attention to the unmistakable contrast between religious communities and the for-profit corporation. Religious organizations exist for the purpose of fostering religious faith. But that is not true for the corporation whose workers are employed to sustain the operations of the corporation and who are not drawn from one religious faith or community. According to Ginsburg, “for-profit corporations are different from religious communities in that they use labor to make a profit, rather than to perpetuate the religious values [shared by a community of believers].”69 Ginsburg wholly concurred with the government’s case that RFRA was not meant to include for-profit corporations because their purpose is to make money and not to disseminate religious beliefs or values.
Thus the issue of corporate purpose explicitly arises in Hobby Lobby with Justice Ginsburg’s attempt to draw a bright line between the for-profit business corporation and religious, nonprofit organizations. Following the lead of the attorneys who represented the government against Hobby Lobby, she portrays the business corporation as functioning within a secular sphere with one overriding goal: make a profit for shareholders. Dedication to that goal is incompatible with exercising religion within the meaning of RFRA. Ginsburg appeared to dismiss any possibility of a religious orientation for the corporation: “religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers; for-profit corporations do not fit that bill.”70
But the court determined that a for-profit corporation could pursue religious objectives, sometimes at the expense of its own profits “so long as its owners agree.”71 The court’s majority flatly rejected the government’s argument that the for-profit corporation is secular by definition.72 The commitment to making money or to maximize shareholder returns by no means precludes an exercise of religion. According to Justice Alito,
While it is certainly true that a central objective of the for-profit corporation is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is still not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian or other altruistic objectives.73
Even if state corporate law mandates shareholder wealth maximization as a “default rule of governance,” that mandate can be altered by shareholder approval. There are clear implications in the court’s language about corporate purpose, corporate social responsibility, and the corporation’s commitment to social and religious values.74
Ramifications of Hobby Lobby
Public criticism of the Hobby Lobby decision was quite vociferous at times. There were ominous predictions that it would “unleash a parade of horribles.”75 Aside from this overheated rhetoric, however, more targeted and valid criticism centered on the “expansive” notion of corporate personhood that had presumably been adopted by the Supreme Court in this case. Is it really sensible to confer free-exercise rights on a corporate entity that has no conscience or beliefs?
Also, critics argued, while the decision is narrow, this sort of ruling has a history of becoming more broadly cited as a precedent in future cases. Will future courts, building on the logic of Hobby Lobby, begin to grant other requests for religious-based exemptions that will burden third parties? In their view, Justice Ginsburg’s warning was quite apposite: to what extent can employers now refuse to abide by laws and regulations that conflict their sincerely held religious beliefs? For example, will the notion of corporate religious rights justify a refusal to cover other controversial therapies and medicines such as those derived from embryonic stem cell research?76
Some legal scholars have also noted that Hobby Lobby ignores the rights and interests of all corporate stakeholders except the owners. While the owners’ religious convictions are internalized and acknowledged, the employees’ religious beliefs and their interests in accessing certain forms of contraception are nullified in this decision. According to Ackerman and Cole, “the corporation owes nothing to anyone, except those who have an ownership interest.” The owners’ beliefs and rights seem to be the only ones that matter. Should the owners’ religious rights take precedence over the rights of employees to free, unrestricted access to these contraceptive treatments that has been mandated by Congress as part of the ACA?77
At the same time, supporters of the Hobby Lobby decision echoed the reasoning of Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion. The religious beliefs of corporate owners (such as the Greens) are not confined to “what happens in their minds, homes, and houses of worship.”78 Rather, those beliefs also shape and influence their business dealings and their public lives and thus can even become embedded within corporate structures. To argue otherwise is to accept a narrow and arbitrary conception of religion’s impact on the human person. Also, the for-profit corporation is not intrinsically secular. A commitment to profits and enhanced shareholder value need not rule out other objectives that require free-exercise rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Therefore, the court was right to uphold the idea that U.S. citizens do not forsake their religious liberties when they form a family business. Companies like Hobby Lobby have every right to operate the company “in a manner consistent with Biblical principles,” and the legal system must respect that decision.79
Sketch out the arguments for and against Hobby Lobby Inc. In your view, what are the strongest arguments that support the company’s position? Do you agree with Hobby Lobby’s contention of “complicity” if it provided the abortifacient contraceptives to its employees as part of its insurance package?
Do you agree with the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision? If not, do you agree with the elements of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion which were presented in the case?
Should for-profit (but closely held) corporations like Hobby Lobby have a right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Do you worry about the negative implications of recognizing such a right?
Hobby Lobby Case Study
Abstract
The case study involves Hobby Lobby Inc. and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The issue in the case was: Is a closely held, for-profit corporation entitled to the free exercise of religion without undue government interference? Hobby Lobby claims that as an incorporated body that ascribes to Christian values, it should be exempted from the Affordable Care Act, which promotes the use of abortifacient. It violates its religious belief because the abortifacient contraceptive terminates life. Therefore, participation in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act makes the company complicit. The Supreme Court held that the religious freedom of a closely held, for-profit corporation is protected under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The arguments for Hobby Lobby Inc.
Legal standing: Hobby Lobby Inc. is an incorporated entity with all rights and freedoms protected under the Constitution.
Religious liberty: The Constitution expressly and definitively protects religious freedom through the First Amendment, and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Constitution prohibits Congress from violating religious freedom or establishing a law concerning exercising a religion.
The arguments against Hobby Lobby Inc.
It is a for profit (but closely held) corporation and was not granted injunctive relief on constitutional grounds. Religious school and employers, including churches and religious nonprofit organizations, were exempted from the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, for-profit (but closely held) corporations were excluded from the exemption list.
The government ‘s compelling interest. The case of Hobby Lobby Inc. and the Department of Health and Human Services presents a delicate balance between public policy and the rights enshrined in the First Amendment and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The government must advance public health, while religious freedom is a fundamental right protected in the Constitution. Therefore, the question might be: Which provision supersedes the other? The government may also argue that the main issue arises from taxation. The principle of compelling interest and uniform application of law does not favor Hobby Lobby Inc.
In your view, what are the strongest argument that support the company’s position? Do you agree with Hobby Lobby’s contention of “complicity” if it provided the abortifacient contraceptives to its employees as part of its insurance packages?
Hobby Lobby’s contention of “complicity” has merit. As a legal entity with a mission statement, the corporation has Christian values, which the company endeavors to protect. It was founded on strong Christian principles that believe in the sanctity of life. Therefore, subjecting Hobby Lobby to conscientiously participate in an insurance scheme that may permit termination of life is against its religious values. The practice would compromise the mission statement of the organization.
Additionally, Hobby Lobby’s contention had solid constitutional ground. Both the First Amendment and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act offer protection against government encroachment on the religious beliefs of the corporate body. Consequently, Hobby Lobby qualified for injunctive relief sought from the court and exemption as other non-profit organizations. Hobby Lobby would be “complicit” if it pays insurance because contraceptives, are abortifacients.
Do you agree with the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision? If not, do you agree with the elements of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion which were presented in the case?
I agree with the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision. On a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Hobby Lobby, Inc. acquired legal standing the moment it was incorporated. It shares a distinct mission and certain rights with real people. These rights included religious freedom protected under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Compelling, Hobby Lobby to contribute to the Affordable Care Act despite its objection on religious grounds was invading its freedom of religion.
Moreover, I share the opinion of the Supreme Court that the for-profit, closely held institution has the right to exercise religious belief as enshrined within the Constitution and (RFRA). Also, of the 24 methods, Hobby Lobby only objected to the 4. Therefore, the government had other means to advance compelling interest as the four methods were not the least restrictive means as required in RFRA. Therefore, Hobby Lobby was justified in objecting to the contribution to abortifacients. The contraceptives’ purpose goes against Christian belief as the contraceptive terminates human life, just like in the case of abortion.
Should for profit (but closely held) corporations like Hobby Lobby have a right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the US. Constitution? Do you worry about the negative implications of recognizing such a right?
For-profit (but closely held) corporations like Hobby Lobby have a right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because of their statutes as legal persons. The incorporated firm acquires the legal person and can operate under its own name. Therefore, freedom to exercise religion enables such entities to advance religious practices that align with their mission and vision. Moreover, the First Amendment protects and promotes different religious beliefs without coercion from the government. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution encourages religious tolerance for individuals and corporations with legal standing as fictional persons.
Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives rights to the free exercise of religion, extending this right to incorporation presents some precarious implications. The most challenging aspect of such rights can be noted when the government wants to promote public policy. For example, the case of Hobby Lobby Inc. presents a conflict of interest when the government creates administrative regulations that overlap the boundary. The government aims to protect employees through the Affordable Care Act, while its policy infringes on the right to free religion. According to Hobby Lobby Inc., implementing the policy would violate religious beliefs. Therefore, the firm will be participating in killing the unborn children.
I am worried about recognizing a right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for incorporated institutions. The rights limit the government when it intends to implement universal noble programs to promote public welfare. Identifying legal and ethical values may be challenging for business incorporation (Spinello, 2019).) For example, applying the First Amendment to entities like Hobby Lobby Inc. assumes that corporate culture is uniform and represented by management. A corporate body cannot have a single religious belief, unlike a real person. As Justice Alito explained, it is the difficulty noted in the Supreme Court’s majority decision. It must be based on the most influential people within the organization. Therefore, the government should be given some latitude under the constitution to relax some provisions on the free exercise of religion when dealing with for-profit (but closely held) corporations.
Reference
Spinello, R. A (2020). Business ethics: contemporary issues and cases. Sage Publications.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
